Supernova Remnants

In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode
violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called
supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of
miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy
should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000
years' worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way
looks young.

a. "An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy
yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good
agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae." G. A.
Tammann, "On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral
Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies," Astronomy
and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

b. Keith Davies, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,"
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994),
pp. 175-184.
"Where have all the remnants gone?" Astronomy Survey Committee of the
National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old
universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without
billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the "origins
question" behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of
evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our
media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost
unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky
assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most
people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe
are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at
least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/

In article
<9dbaf6da-8ae1-48ac-bbff-212335a5508f@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:

> Supernova Remnants

Go away you moronic idiot!

For one, on reading information on that website I found just as much
refusal to see the possibility of an old universe as strict adherants to
evolution have to the possibility of a young universe. Also, the author
seems to have done a very good job at picking eveidence that is
questionable at best to support a creationism only and young universe
theory. Second, there is far more recorded scientific evidence for a
universe billions of years old, such as studies of background radiation in
space. I am not saying that creationism is entirely wrong, nor am I saying
that evolution is entirely right. We as a species are still very young and
we hav e forgotten somethings. For one, the universe is not stranger that
we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose, at least at this time.
Science does not have to conflict with religion just because it does not
take god into account, but one must have the sensibility to not be so
rigid in ones view that to concieve of the possibility that a conflicting
idea might not be completely accurate to reconcile that. No one religion
has all the answers for us, that includes science by the way. Religion is
supposed to give us spiritual guidance and point us in a direction that
results in us all leading lives in which we work to treat all living
beings with the respect they deserve. To hold such a striclty rigid
viewpoint, regardless of what you believe in, can lead to the thought that
"I am the only one right" or "My religion is the only one right" which
tends to cause needless tension between peoples. For one thing, the main
reason that the Christian church has such dominacne in the world today is
that early in christian history the church very quickly became the
oppressor and perpetuated the same injustices against followers of other
spiritual paths that Rome had inflicted upon them. Christianity become
domint early in recorded history has more to do with who had the larger
army than who was right.





On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:24:08 -0600, <Pahu78@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supernova Remnants
>
> In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode
> violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called
> supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of
> miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy
> should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000
> years' worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way
> looks young.
>
> a. "An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy
> yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good
> agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae." G. A.
> Tammann, "On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral
> Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies," Astronomy
> and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.
>
> b. Keith Davies, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,"
> Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism
> (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994),
> pp. 175-184.
> "Where have all the remnants gone?" Astronomy Survey Committee of the
> National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics
> (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.
>
> Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old
> universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without
> billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the "origins
> question" behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of
> evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our
> media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost
> unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky
> assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most
> people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe
> are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at
> least initially, when they see the evidence.
>
> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
>
> http://www.creationscience.com/
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In article <op.t7klhcfi6z24vv@chris-pc.gateway.2wire.net>, "The Filip
Family" <filipfamily@att.net> wrote:

> For one, on reading information on that website I found just as much
> refusal to see the possibility of an old universe
<snip>

Please do not encourage the moron.

In article <op.t7klhcfi6z24vv@chris-pc.gateway.2wire.net>,
"The Filip Family" <filipfamily@att.net> wrote:

> No one religion
> has all the answers for us, that includes science by the way.

Science isn't a religion.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

On Mar 5, 11:24 am, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
> Supernova Remnants
>
> In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode
> violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called
> supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of
> miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy
> should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000
> years' worth of supernova debris are seen (b).  So, the Milky Way
> looks young.
>
> a. "An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy
> yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good
> agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae."  G. A.
> Tammann, "On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral
> Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies," Astronomy
> and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.
>
> b. Keith Davies, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,"
> Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism
> (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994),
> pp. 175-184.
> "Where have all the remnants gone?" Astronomy Survey Committee of the
> National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics
> (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.
>
> Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old
> universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without
> billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the "origins
> question" behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of
> evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our
> media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost
> unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky
> assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most
> people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe
> are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at
> least initially, when they see the evidence.
>
> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
>
> http://www.creationscience.com/

Sigh... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html

DIAF, Pahu.

Stile4aly wrote:

>>
>> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
>> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
>>
>> http://www.creationscience.com/
>
> Sigh... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html
..
..
Don't feel bad... I'm not even an atheist and he (and the author of
that book) seem like crackpots.

On Mar 6, 4:30 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
wrote:
> Stile4aly wrote:
>
> >> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> >> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
>
> >>http://www.creationscience.com/
>
> > Sigh...  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html
>
> .
> .
>   Don't feel bad... I'm not even an atheist and he (and the author of
> that book) seem like crackpots.

I'm not an atheist either, but the facts are that idiots like Pahu use
word tricks and poor research to influence people to think that the
universe is 6000 years old and that evolution is on shaky ground and
that you have to be an atheist to believe in it. It's tiresome to
begin with, but doubly so when they use arguments that have been
debunked for years.

In article
<9dbaf6da-8ae1-48ac-bbff-212335a5508f@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:

> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.


If the universe is only 10,000 years old how can you see a galaxy
2,000,000 light years away? Most of the night sky should appear empty
and black if we could only see what is within 10,000 light years of
earth.

Heck, with that limitation, we couldn't even see the stars on the other
side of our *own* galaxy, which are 100,000 light years distant.

In article <atropos-18A5D8.10262209032008@news.giganews.com>,
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article
><9dbaf6da-8ae1-48ac-bbff-212335a5508f@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
>> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
>
>
>If the universe is only 10,000 years old how can you see a galaxy
>2,000,000 light years away? Most of the night sky should appear empty
>and black if we could only see what is within 10,000 light years of
>earth.
>
>Heck, with that limitation, we couldn't even see the stars on the other
>side of our *own* galaxy, which are 100,000 light years distant.

They are fake.
It's a matte or computer generation or something. A trick, foisted
on the innocents of the planet by the godless commies. Just like the
'alleged' moon landing!

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <13t8n5p1mchgj18@corp.supernews.com>, jill@tuells.org (jill)
wrote:

> In article <atropos-18A5D8.10262209032008@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><9dbaf6da-8ae1-48ac-bbff-212335a5508f@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> >> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
> >
> >
> >If the universe is only 10,000 years old how can you see a galaxy
> >2,000,000 light years away? Most of the night sky should appear empty
> >and black if we could only see what is within 10,000 light years of
> >earth.
> >
> >Heck, with that limitation, we couldn't even see the stars on the other
> >side of our *own* galaxy, which are 100,000 light years distant.
>
> They are fake.
> It's a matte or computer generation or something. A trick, foisted
> on the innocents of the planet by the godless commies. Just like the
> 'alleged' moon landing!

There are actually people who would believe that if their preacher told
it to them.

In article <13t8n5p1mchgj18@corp.supernews.com>, jill@tuells.org (jill)
wrote:

> In article <atropos-18A5D8.10262209032008@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><9dbaf6da-8ae1-48ac-bbff-212335a5508f@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> >> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
> >
> >
> >If the universe is only 10,000 years old how can you see a galaxy
> >2,000,000 light years away? Most of the night sky should appear empty
> >and black if we could only see what is within 10,000 light years of
> >earth.
> >
> >Heck, with that limitation, we couldn't even see the stars on the other
> >side of our *own* galaxy, which are 100,000 light years distant.
>
> They are fake.
> It's a matte or computer generation or something. A trick, foisted
> on the innocents of the planet by the godless commies. Just like the
> 'alleged' moon landing!

You sound like a French Acadamy Award winner!

Of course they're fake; the universe is only 6000 years wide.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

In article <atropos-418066.19574009032008@news.giganews.com>,
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <13t8n5p1mchgj18@corp.supernews.com>, jill@tuells.org (jill)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-18A5D8.10262209032008@news.giganews.com>,
> > Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> > >In article
> > ><9dbaf6da-8ae1-48ac-bbff-212335a5508f@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> > >> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.
> > >
> > >
> > >If the universe is only 10,000 years old how can you see a galaxy
> > >2,000,000 light years away? Most of the night sky should appear empty
> > >and black if we could only see what is within 10,000 light years of
> > >earth.
> > >
> > >Heck, with that limitation, we couldn't even see the stars on the other
> > >side of our *own* galaxy, which are 100,000 light years distant.
> >
> > They are fake.
> > It's a matte or computer generation or something. A trick, foisted
> > on the innocents of the planet by the godless commies. Just like the
> > 'alleged' moon landing!
>
> There are actually people who would believe that if their preacher told
> it to them.

Yep.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

supermann says:

Don't waste your time jabbering with the Flintstones. God is a work
of fiction, "literature", and word-of-mouth. He was never anything
else. God has been retro-engineered into the natural sciences by
clerics who do not understand what they are attempting to interfere
with. The people who worship dieties are fools with questionable
content of character.
Their only hope of survival, as an ideology, is to maintain a
perpetual, disseminating argumentative with the outer world in the
form of the "political debate"...that is, so long as they keep moving
their lips, engaging you with bullshit, they're still a part of the
game. As a religeon, they were dead since Darwin. Democratic niceties,
a quality hard-won in modern history, keeps us from asspoling these
god-monkeys over the Potomac and forget it. That will have to change
as the god-monkeys have now forced the question to the fore.

Your children have been born into the last century of western
religeon. It is pointless to offer titty to individuals as societally
antithetic as the christians.


supermann, the man of feel

On Mar 5, 1:24 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
> Supernova Remnants
>
> In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode
> violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called
> supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of
> miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy
> should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000
> years' worth of supernova debris are seen (b).  So, the Milky Way
> looks young.

You mean, when you exclude the old supernova, right?

SN 1604 is 20,000 light-years away. We saw it explode in 1604, which
means it actually exploded around
18,400 BC. W49B is 35,000 light years away. The nearest extra-
galactic one I can find is just outside our galaxy, and is
called 1987A, in the Tarantula Nebula. We saw that in 1987, and it's
about 160,000 light-years away.

Kind of blows your 7,000 year estimate out of the water, there,
doesn't it?

> a. "An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy
> yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good
> agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae."  G. A.
> Tammann, "On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral
> Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies," Astronomy
> and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

That's pretty accurate.. I like the math in that.

> b. Keith Davies, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,"
> Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism
> (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994),
> pp. 175-184.

> "Where have all the remnants gone?" Astronomy Survey Committee of the
> National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics
> (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Lovely example of quote-mining.

This has been anwered time and again. After a supernova, which is,
initially, really bright, the energy
dissipates as the matter and energy are spread over an ever-widening
volume of space. Eventually
you'll be unable to "see" the supernova remnants (even if you know
precisely where to look).

After about 6,500 years you won't be able to see the supernova
remnants. So, in about 6100 years, all the
supernova which we currently have catalogued will disappear from our
ability to view (well, barring new telescopic
technologies, except for the 1987A, which will fade in about 8480 AD).

So, we can clearly see supernova that happened tens of thousands of
years ago. But they are not as visible now, as
they were when they were first noticed. And in years to come, they
will be even less noticable.

It's like looking for glow of a firecracker a week later.

> Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old
> universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without
> billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the "origins
> question" behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of
> evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our
> media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost
> unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky
> assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most
> people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe
> are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at
> least initially, when they see the evidence.

Your analogy is like saying, "look, here is a video of John F Kennedy
being shot -- it must have happened just moments ago.

> Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar
> system are young--possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate quite the opposite. Unlike
you, I'll provide some :

First, the Earth...

Dendrochronology, just tree-rings, indicate the trees (and tree-
remains) that we can find today show an unbroken link as far back as
11,000 years (using German and Northern Ireland European Oak and Pine
Tree chronologies).

The Vostok Ice-Core shows an age of about 145,000 to 175,000 years
ago.

Potassium-argon dating shows a great many rocks of the Earth to be
billions of years old. And that's consistent with other dating
methods.

The Fordham Gneiss boulders in Central Park, in New York City ( see
Isotopic and morphologic evidence for the age of the Fordham gneiss)
are estimated to about 1170 my (meaning over a billion years old) --
using U-Th-Pb and Sm-Nd isotopic methods.

Then we have the solar-system :
Meteorites are usually aged at 4+ billions years old (see
www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm.
Moon rocks average about 4.1 billion years old (see www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html)
Rocks on Mars (actually, still on Mars, processed by the Spirit Rover)
are dated at 3.6 billion years old using parent-daughter isotope
methods.

Sorry, science is STILL supporting evolution. More significantly,
science utterly destroys your position.

On Mar 5, 12:24 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
> Supernova Remnants
>
<snip!>

One example disproves it all. Supernova 1987A occured some 170,000
years ago.
Although not in the Milky Way it was in a companion galaxy, the Large
Magellanic
Cloud.

So the universe is at least ~30 times older than you were hoping. I'm
pretty sure it's
way older than that too but this example was simply provided to toast
your theory.

You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
to be
factual history, don't you? :wink wink:

On Mar 11, 9:14 am, supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> supermann says:
>
>   Don't waste your time jabbering with the Flintstones. God is a work
> of fiction, "literature", and word-of-mouth. He was never anything
> else. God has been retro-engineered into the natural sciences by
> clerics who do not understand what they are attempting to interfere
> with. The people who worship dieties are fools with questionable
> content of character.
>    Their only hope of survival, as an ideology, is to maintain a
> perpetual, disseminating argumentative with the outer world in the
> form of the "political debate"...that is, so long as they keep moving
> their lips, engaging you with bullshit, they're still a part of the
> game. As a religeon, they were dead since Darwin. Democratic niceties,
> a quality hard-won in modern history, keeps us from asspoling these
> god-monkeys over the Potomac and forget it. That will have to change
> as the god-monkeys have now forced the question to the fore.
>
>    Your children have been born into the last century of western
> religeon. It is pointless to offer titty to individuals as societally
> antithetic as the christians.
>

SUPERMANN.......................

I thought we all threw you off the mountain years ago!

What the BEEP?!

supermann wrote:
> supermann says:
>
> Don't waste your time jabbering with the Flintstones. God is a work
> of fiction, "literature", and word-of-mouth. He was never anything
> else. God has been retro-engineered into the natural sciences by
> clerics who do not understand what they are attempting to interfere
> with. The people who worship dieties are fools with questionable
> content of character.
> Their only hope of survival, as an ideology, is to maintain a
> perpetual, disseminating argumentative with the outer world in the
> form of the "political debate"...that is, so long as they keep moving
> their lips, engaging you with bullshit, they're still a part of the
> game. As a religeon, they were dead since Darwin. Democratic niceties,
> a quality hard-won in modern history, keeps us from asspoling these
> god-monkeys over the Potomac and forget it. That will have to change
> as the god-monkeys have now forced the question to the fore.
..
..
It really is entertaining how you constantly talk about how socially
and educationally inept religious people are, yet all you do is spout
hate and intolerance.

mike3 wrote:

> You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
> to be
> factual history, don't you? :wink wink:
..
..
Kind've like man-made global warming. :)

"Ryan P." <rpaque@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47dc28a6$0$16666$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> mike3 wrote:
>
>> You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
>> to be
>> factual history, don't you? :wink wink:
> .
> .
> Kind've like man-made global warming. :)


LOL!

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

On Mar 15, 1:31 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
wrote:
> supermann wrote:
> > supermann says:
>
> > Don't waste your time jabbering with the Flintstones. God is a work
> > of fiction, "literature", and word-of-mouth. He was never anything
> > else. God has been retro-engineered into the natural sciences by
> > clerics who do not understand what they are attempting to interfere
> > with. The people who worship dieties are fools with questionable
> > content of character.
> > Their only hope of survival, as an ideology, is to maintain a
> > perpetual, disseminating argumentative with the outer world in the
> > form of the "political debate"...that is, so long as they keep moving
> > their lips, engaging you with bullshit, they're still a part of the
> > game. As a religeon, they were dead since Darwin. Democratic niceties,
> > a quality hard-won in modern history, keeps us from asspoling these
> > god-monkeys over the Potomac and forget it. That will have to change
> > as the god-monkeys have now forced the question to the fore.
>
> .
> .
> It really is entertaining how you constantly talk about how socially
> and educationally inept religious people are, yet all you do is spout
> hate and intolerance.

It's not entertaining it's distressing and sad.

Just because one may not agree with religion does not mean one should
hate _everyone_ who does...

On Mar 15, 1:51 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
wrote:
> mike3 wrote:
> > You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
> > to be
> > factual history, don't you? :wink wink:
>
> .
> .
> Kind've like man-made global warming. :)

Actually, that's been backed up by a great deal of scientific proof.

mike3 wrote:
> On Mar 15, 1:51 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> mike3 wrote:
>>> You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
>>> to be
>>> factual history, don't you? :wink wink:
>> .
>> .
>> Kind've like man-made global warming. :)
>
> Actually, that's been backed up by a great deal of scientific proof.
..
..
Yes, like the increasing ice cover in the arctic, the booming polar
bear populations, the lack of an increase in average global temperature
over the past 10 years, the scientific studies that show that increased
CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWS temperature increases...

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0babecf0-3ff8-4919-ab44-1a9f5b61b3a6@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 1:51 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> mike3 wrote:
>> > You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
>> > to be
>> > factual history, don't you? :wink wink:
>>
>> .
>> .
>> Kind've like man-made global warming. :)
>
> Actually, that's been backed up by a great deal of scientific proof.


It's also been disproved by a great deal of scientific proof; often by the
same scientific proof used to prove 'man-made global warming'. Where there
is a will, there is a spin.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

In article
<0babecf0-3ff8-4919-ab44-1a9f5b61b3a6@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 1:51 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > mike3 wrote:
> > > You do know that the Genesis story was a moral story and never meant
> > > to be
> > > factual history, don't you? :wink wink:
> >
> > .
> > .
> > Kind've like man-made global warming. :)
>
> Actually, that's been backed up by a great deal of scientific proof.

Non scientific proof bought and paid for by Al Gore.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

In article
<777a5780-bdee-4a2a-9ada-83cdb44dff5e@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 1:31 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > supermann wrote:
> > > supermann says:
> >
> > > Don't waste your time jabbering with the Flintstones. God is a work
> > > of fiction, "literature", and word-of-mouth. He was never anything
> > > else. God has been retro-engineered into the natural sciences by
> > > clerics who do not understand what they are attempting to interfere
> > > with. The people who worship dieties are fools with questionable
> > > content of character.
> > > Their only hope of survival, as an ideology, is to maintain a
> > > perpetual, disseminating argumentative with the outer world in the
> > > form of the "political debate"...that is, so long as they keep moving
> > > their lips, engaging you with bullshit, they're still a part of the
> > > game. As a religeon, they were dead since Darwin. Democratic niceties,
> > > a quality hard-won in modern history, keeps us from asspoling these
> > > god-monkeys over the Potomac and forget it. That will have to change
> > > as the god-monkeys have now forced the question to the fore.
> >
> > .
> > .
> > It really is entertaining how you constantly talk about how socially
> > and educationally inept religious people are, yet all you do is spout
> > hate and intolerance.
>
> It's not entertaining it's distressing and sad.
>
> Just because one may not agree with religion does not mean one should
> hate _everyone_ who does...

No, you don't need to hate them, but you should at the very least look
down on them.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> did eloquently scribble:
>> > Kind've like man-made global warming. :)
>>
>> Actually, that's been backed up by a great deal of scientific proof.

> Non scientific proof bought and paid for by Al Gore.

Beware of manbearpig
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

On Mar 15, 3:31 pm, "Ryan P." <rpa...@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com>
wrote:
> supermannwrote:
> >supermannsays:
>
> >   Don't waste your time jabbering with the Flintstones. God is a work
> > of fiction, "literature", and word-of-mouth. He was never anything
> > else. God has been retro-engineered into the natural sciences by
> > clerics who do not understand what they are attempting to interfere
> > with. The people who worship dieties are fools with questionable
> > content of character.
> >    Their only hope of survival, as an ideology, is to maintain a
> > perpetual, disseminating argumentative with the outer world in the
> > form of the "political debate"...that is, so long as they keep moving
> > their lips, engaging you with bullshit, they're still a part of the
> > game. As a religeon, they were dead since Darwin. Democratic niceties,
> > a quality hard-won in modern history, keeps us from asspoling these
> > god-monkeys over the Potomac and forget it. That will have to change
> > as the god-monkeys have now forced the question to the fore.
>
> .
> .
>   It really is entertaining how you constantly talk about how socially
> and educationally inept religious people are, yet all you do is spout
> hate and intolerance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

...Oh, no need to thank me...I did it purely for pleasure...

just look at the republican nominee. He's as big an atheist as I. I
will hit god, and god will hit the deck. I no longer have to worry
about a miserable afterlife that mimicks a miserable world

Hey, maybe I should pray for YOU...